I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

Every now and then I read a blog post that melts my heart. I truly feel the pain, anguish and anger of the writer. I may not always agree with the writer’s point of view, but I empathize with the writer’s pain nonetheless.

Reading Peter Gleick’s January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com, I experienced that empathy in full force. Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.

Gleick sets the tone for his blog post in the very first sentence, where he begins his column by stating, “The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011….” Here, in the first eight words of his column, Gleick unwittingly reveals one of the primary reasons why he is so wrong in his dire warnings of a human-induced global warming crisis. Gleick and his fellow global warming alarmists are the ultimate climate change deniers.

They present changing climate as unprecedented and unavoidably harmful. They act as if the climate never changed before now. In reality, however, the earth’s long-term, mid-term and short-term climate history is defined by frequent and substantial climate change. Of course, as Gleick states, “The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011”! When was the last time the Earth’s climate was not undergoing some change? Please, global warming alarmists, stop denying climate change!

Gleick finishes his opening sentence by asserting, “a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world.”

That is quite a bold, unsupported statement. Just what were those extreme weather events? Gleick doesn’t say. Perhaps we can speculate.

It certainly wasn’t hurricanes, as Ryan Maue at the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies documents that global and U.S. hurricane activity has been remarkably quiet for the past few years. During 2009, global accumulated tropical cyclone energy reached a record low, and has remained abnormally quiet in the two-plus years since.

It certainly wasn’t tornadoes, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports 2011 continued a long-term trend in declining frequency of strong tornadoes. Yes, there were some strong tornadoes in 2011, but there are strong tornadoes every year. The only thing climatically remarkable about the 2011 tornado season is that the relatively few strong tornadoes that did occur happened to beat the odds and touch down more often in urban areas than is usually the case. Unless Gleick is arguing that global warming somehow causes hurricanes to wickedly target disproportionately urban areas, tornadoes like hurricanes are becoming less of a threat during recent decades as the planet has modestly warmed.

It certainly wasn’t drought, as multiple peer reviewed studies report global soil moisture has consistently improved during the past century as the planet has warmed. (See, for example, this study.) Yes, some droughts are going to occur somewhere on the planet each year, as they always have, but cherry-picking one of the increasingly less frequent droughts that still do occur does not constitute evidence that global warming is causing more extreme weather events.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

James Taylor, senior fellow for science denial at the Heartland Institute, wants you to believe that the extreme weather events of 2011 were not particularly noteworthy. Unfortunately for him, the facts prove otherwise.

First, here’s an excerpt from an article in Scientific American entitled “NOAA Makes It Official: 2011 Among Most Extreme Weather Years in History:”

“The devastating string of tornadoes, droughts, wildfires and floods that hit the United States this spring marks 2011 as one of the most extreme years on record, according to a new federal analysis.

Just shy of the halfway mark, 2011 has seen eight $1-billion-plus disasters, with total damages from wild weather at more than $32 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Agency officials said that total could grow significantly, since they expect this year’s North Atlantic hurricane season, which began June 1, will be an active one.

Overall, NOAA experts said extreme weather events have grown more frequent in the United States since 1980. Part of that shift is due to climate change, said Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center.”

So, according to the NOAA, James Taylor is engaging in science denial. But of course, the NOAA analysis is restricted to extreme weather events in the United States. What about the rest of the world?

Well, there’s this fact from a recent article in the Guardian (“Weird weather around the world sees in 2012″):

“Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, now estimates that losses from natural disasters totalled $380bn in 2011, nearly twice as much as the previous record set in 2005.”

So, according to Munich Re, James Taylor is engaging in science denial again.

Then there’s this, according to Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground website:

“I’ve been a meteorologist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen a year like 2011 in terms of extreme weather events.”

And there’s this from a story on the Voice of America website entitled “US Sets Extreme Weather Records in 2011: Events consistent with long-term global warming trends”:

“Twelve weather-related disasters accounted for $1 billion or more each in economic losses, a new record, according to Chris Vaccaro, spokesman for the National Weather Service.

We’ve seen historic events of nearly every weather category,” says Vaccaro. “So in terms of snow storms, and hurricanes and floods and droughts, all of these events this year ranked in the top three or even the highest ever recorded.

The extreme weather affected millions of people, claimed 1,000 lives, resulted in 8,000 injuries and totaled more than $52 billion in economic losses. The most costly, according to David Brown, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was the year-long drought that continues to grip southern plains states.”

So how is it possible that James Taylor missed all of this news? The most likely explanation is that he didn’t miss any of it. Instead he just doesn’t choose to acknowledge these inconvenient facts.

You see, James Taylor is a PR agent for the fossil fuel industry, and he’s desperately trying to confuse the public about the scientific issues relating to climate change. Read his weekly blog at Forbes for a few weeks and you’ll see that he doesn’t actually ever present scientific evidence to support his assertions. His strategy on behalf of his oil and coal company clients is to try to lawyer the argument–his tactic is to distort, exaggerate, and/or fabricate information in the hope of undercutting support for the creation of sensible public policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The important facts are easy to establish:

1. According to the NOAA, 2011 was a record year for extreme weather events in the United States.

2. According to the annual natural disaster report produced by Aon Benfield, the global reinsurance intermediary, “The world endured a very active year in 2011, marked by a series of devastating natural disaster events. Extraordinary severe weather outbreaks in the United States spawned a record number of tornadoes, damaging winds and destructive hail. Major flooding covered vast areas of Southeast Asia, while floods also impacted parts of Australia, North America and South America. Hurricane Irene made landfall in the United States, the first U.S. landfalling hurricane since 2008. Ten additional tropical cyclone landfalls occurred worldwide.”

3. James Taylor and the Heartland Institute are in the business of representing the interests of industry groups. Previously they worked for Big Tobacco and tried to misrepresent the health risks associated with smoking. Now they are playing the same game on behalf of the fossil fuel industry–they actively engage in science denial in an effort to hinder or delay environmental policy. In other words, James Taylor and his coal and oil company bosses put their narrow financial interests ahead of the greater public good.

In summary, this is a typical bit of science denial from James Taylor. He happily ignores the facts and hopes that you will too.

I don’t normally respond to the posts by James Taylor — reading them makes my head explode. They are written as though from a completely different universe — some parallel universe where up is down, left is right, and global warming isn’t happening…. whew (though a careful reader of this post by Taylor will note that he accidentally acknowledges global warming is occurring). But since I’m the entire target of this rant, I thought I might offer a minor comment or two:

He says I’m upset because so few people agree with me… Hmm, 97-98% of all climate scientists (of which I am one, and James Taylor is not) agree with me — climate change is happening, and it is happening because of human activities. Maybe no one at the Heartland Institute agrees (though they are paid not to), but I like the company I keep better.

I will ignore the completely scientific nonsense that comprises the rest of his post, except to note the fine response by “cyruspinkerton” who sets Taylor straight about extreme events in 2011. Taylor must not read the news, or the science, either.

I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that $7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus). And their 990 tax form doesn’t say either. [By the way, while my Forbes posts reflect my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Pacific Institute, all of the Pacific Institute's financial records are public.]

A month ago James Taylor wrote an article about “Climategate 2.0″ in which he argued for openness and transparency in the debate around climate change. What follows is the comment I left, a comment to which Mr. Taylor never replied. I believe it’s relevant to re-post part of it here in light of Mr. Taylor raising the topic of Heartland Institute funding and your subsequent comment.

—–

Mr. Taylor makes the case that “Climategate” highlights the importance of making open and transparent the science and policy debate around climate change. I agree that it is undoubtedly in the public interest for all parties engaged in the scientific and public policy debate to be honest and forthcoming.

There is a problem with Mr. Taylor’s argument of principle, though. If he argues for an open and transparent science and policy debate as a matter of principle, then the responsibility for openness and transparency falls on all parties to the debate.

For instance, Mr. Taylor works for the Heartland Institute as a senior fellow for environment policy. The Heartland Institute is heavily involved in the debate around climate change. According to their website, the Heartland Institute “has assembled a team of leading scientists and economic experts to participate in the production of books, videos, a monthly public policy newspaper, events, and other public relations activities.” Their goal is to influence both the scientific and public policy debate with respect to global warming.

If we accept Mr. Taylor’s case for openness and transparency as a matter of principle, then we should expect the Heartland Institute to be forthcoming about funding sources and associations and contacts with industry groups and organizations. If Mr. Taylor really believes as a matter of principle that the climate change debate should be open and transparent, shouldn’t he also call out the Heartland Institute for their refusal to be forthcoming about their corporate and foundation donors? Shouldn’t Mr. Taylor also criticize the Heartland Institute for their unwillingness to document their connections to and contacts with industry groups, organizations and individuals who stand to profit from the free-market environmentalism that the Heartland Institute advocates?

Commenter “cyruspinkerton” cites meteorologist Jeff Masters to bolster his viewpoint. Ironic, considering that when anybody doubting the idea of man-caused global warming cites a skeptic meteorologist, a chorus of the opposition howls that such meteorologists lack the requisite expertise in climate science.

Peter Gleick’s last sentence in his comment is pretty much what sends the entire notion of man-caused global warming over the cliff of credibility, because his and others’ 20-year+ fixation with marginalizing skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers is such an obvious indication that they do not have confidence in the IPCC’s ability to support itself. The public is not told where skeptics are wrong, we are told to ignore them because they’re on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.

Problem is, we have yet to see a solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation. Sure, practically every pro-global warming book author and article writer says skeptic opposition mimics old tobacco industry tactics, but who do they end up citing to prove this? All the accusation repetitions ultimately filter back to anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who himself never bothers to show us his single bit of smoking gun evidence in its full context, or bothers to say where or how he got it. Think about it for a moment, without this one reason for us to ignore the skeptic scientists, we would then be obligated to listen to them, because that is the responsible thing to do.

So, it’s not up to James Taylor to show us who funds the Heartland Institute, it’s up to Gleick, Gore, Pachari, Oreskes, Mooney, Romm, Gelbspan or any others who want to give it a shot: Stop with the guilt-by-association garbage, SHOW US YOUR SPECIFIC PROOF THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SKEPTIC CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN EXCHANGE FOR FALSE FABRICATED CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS!

If these folks continue failing to do this, everyone will ultimately realize that we do not have skeptics and the fossil fuel industry conspiring to confuse the public, it is the opposite; a cadre of well-financed, well-organized enviro-activists engaging in character assassination in support of a rather small amount of pro-global warming scientists, with the goal of trying to confuse the public into believing the issue is settled.

Commenter “cyruspinkerton” cites meteorologist Jeff Masters to bolster his viewpoint. Ironic, considering that when anybody doubting the idea of man-caused global warming cites a skeptic meteorologist, a chorus of the opposition howls that such meteorologists lack the requisite expertise in climate science.

Peter Gleick’s last sentence in his comment is pretty much what sends the entire notion of man-caused global warming over the cliff of credibility, because his and others’ 20-year+ fixation with marginalizing skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers is such an obvious indication that they do not have confidence in the IPCC’s ability to support itself. The public is not told where skeptics are wrong, we are told to ignore them because they’re on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.

Problem is, we have yet to see a solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation. Sure, practically every pro-global warming book author and article writer says skeptic opposition mimics old tobacco industry tactics, but who do they end up citing to prove this? All the accusation repetitions ultimately filter back to anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who himself never bothers to show us his single bit of smoking gun evidence in its full context, or bothers to say where or how he got it. Think about it for a moment, without this one reason for us to ignore the skeptic scientists, we would then be obligated to listen to them, because that is the responsible thing to do.

So, it’s not up to James Taylor to show us who funds the Heartland Institute, it’s up to Gleick, Gore, Pachari, Oreskes, Mooney, Romm, Gelbspan or any others who want to give it a shot: Stop with the guilt-by-association garbage, SHOW US YOUR SPECIFIC PROOF THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SKEPTIC CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN EXCHANGE FOR FALSE FABRICATED CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS!

If these folks continue failing to do this, everyone will ultimately realize that we do not have skeptics and the fossil fuel industry conspiring to confuse the public, it is the opposite; a cadre of well-financed, well-organized enviro-activists engaging in character assassination in support of a rather small amount of pro-global warming scientists, with the goal of trying to confuse the public into believing the issue is settled.

I am sure Mr. Taylor does appear to you and your kind to be residing in scientifically alien territory. Why he appears as grotesque to you as you to him.

So you are one of those 77 or so climate scientists that bothered to answer that sham survey of which the results declared 97% of climate scientists agree there is global warming. Wow, such a representative sample.

That you must lean on the clown, Cyruspinkerton, for support rather than science is concrete proof that desperation is setting in.

### The devastating earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand made 2011 the costliest year yet for the insurance industry in terms of natural disaster losses, a leading reinsurance company said Wednesday.

Munich Re AG said in an annual report that insured losses last year totaled $105 billion — exceeding the previous record of $101 billion set in 2005, when losses were swollen by claims from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

The company said the total economic cost last year from natural disasters — including uninsured losses — totaled about $380 billion. That was far above the 2005 record of $220 billion.

Japan’s earthquake and tsunami in March caused overall losses of $210 billion and insured losses of between $35 billion and $40 billion, Munich Re said. That didn’t include the consequences of the subsequent meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, which resulted in the evacuation of a wide swath of land.

The second most costly disaster for insurers, at $13 billion, was the February quake that devastated much of the New Zealand city of Christchurch. Overall losses came to $16 billion.

Munich Re noted that last year’s sequence of natural disasters was very rare, and that 2011 brought catastrophes expected only once every 1,000 years or more. Normally, weather-related events are the chief cause of losses, it said.

“Even if it seems hard to believe given recent events, the probability of earthquakes has not increased,” said Peter Hoeppe, the head of Munich Re’s risk research unit.

He added, however, that “these severe earthquakes are timely reminders that the decisions on where to build towns need careful and serious consideration of these risks, especially where certain buildings are concerned, above all nuclear power plants.”

Building codes in earthquake-prone regions need to be made even stricter, he argued.

####

And the big finale……

#####

Severe storms and tornadoes in the United States in late April cost insurers $7.3 billion and led to overall damage worth $15 billion. Hurricane Irene, which hit the Caribbean and U.S. in late August, caused insured losses of $7 billion and total losses of $15 billion.

Still, Munich Re said losses from North Atlantic hurricanes were “moderate” in 2011, with only three major named storms making landfall in the United States.

Regarding scientific opionion, see Anderegg et al – http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract – “we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

Regarding the moon, its temperature drops to -110 degrees C at night, way way lower than the earth’s night time temperature. That’s because of the earth’s atmosphere and its heat trapping greenhouse effect. The moon’s day time temperature is a lot hotter than that of the earth because as well as trapping heat, the earth’s atmosphere also contains gases that block many of the sun’s rays from reaching the surface – eg. ozone blocks most of the UV radiation.

On the funding of skeptics see this piece from Reuters – http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628 – showing that US scientist Willie Soon received funding from the Kochs, Exxon etc.. He admits this, though of course denies that the funding influenced his work.

After directing a full column to singling out scientists who disagree with him and attacking them (and many others) by name, Peter Gleick appears to have his feelings hurt that he is the “entire target” of my column responding to his attacks. I am sorry Peter, but I was actually empathizing with your pain and providing some reassuring truth that might make you feel better. I am sorry that the truth did not set you free.

Gleick says he cannot understand the “parallel universe” of facts and data that I presented that he says makes his “head explode.” Perhaps this is because the “parallel universe” in which I live is one where objective data trumps subjective opinion presented by uninformed or biased sources.

For example, Gleick applauds the “fine response” by an anonymous “cyruspinkerton.” And just what is the substance of what Gleick considers a “fine response”? Cyrus claims global warming must be a crisis because a large insurance corporation says natural disasters caused record economic damage last year. In other words, an anonymous person makes the remarkable claim that because a tsunami and earthquake devastated Japan last year, humans must be creating a global warming crisis. Really, are you serious?! And Peter Gleick finds this to be a “fine response”! Add this to the long list of reasons why Gleick cannot comprehend the “parallel universe” where objective data trumps subjective and ridiculous speculation.

Further in his post, the anonymous person produced a quote from an insurance industry spokesman using global warming as an excuse to charge customers higher premiums. When objective data show declining trends in tornado, hurricane and drought frequency, but an insurance industry spokesman nevertheless uses global warming myths as an excuse to charge its customers higher premiums, Gleick says giving credit to the industry spokesman’s financially self-serving comments while ignoring objective scientific data and peer-reviewed scientific studies is a “fine response.” No wonder Gleick considers objective scientific data a “parallel universe” that he says makes his head explode!

The anonymous person cites additional subjective speculation as well, presented by people with a long-term record of global warming activism, such as NOAA’s Tom Karl. Some NOAA scientists believe humans are causing a global warming crisis. Other NOAA scientists say humans are not causing a global warming crisis, even though much of NOAA’s funding is dependent upon the assertion that humans are indeed causing a global warming crisis. (Bravo for the brave NOAA scientists to stand up for truth even when it works against the financial interests at the federal funding trough!) So rather than citing the objective hurricane data, tornado data, and data-intensive peer-reviewed drought studies I cited in my column, Scientific American, the Guardian and Voice of America quote long-term global warming advocates predictably blaming anything and everything on global warming. Heck, why not just quote Al Gore while you are at it? But then again, this is what we should expect when an anonymous person and Peter Gleick appeal to the “scientific authority” of the media rather than the scientific authority of objective facts and data.

Heck, even NOAA’s “Climate Scene Investigators” (which is itself run by long-term global warming activists) has debunked many of the asserted links between global warming and extreme weather events claimed by the anonymous person and Gleick. See, for example, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/ and http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_18028717 .

Gleick also further reveals his deceitfulness or ignorance (take your choice) by making the straw-man argument that 97-98 percent of scientists say the planet has warmed and human activity is one of the factors. Let me answer the survey questions myself:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels [i.e., the Little Ice Age], do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

I am the 98 percent! So are nearly all of the global warming “skeptics” that Gleick rants about.

Yet these two banal questions do not even remotely address the far more important and central question of whether or not humans are causing a global warming crisis. The mere fact that humans are likely responsible for some of the warming that has lifted the earth out of the Little Ice Age does not necessarily mean that climate Armageddon is at hand. For those who believe otherwise, please do some research on the strikingly negative climate consequences of the Little Ice Age and the striking beneficial climate consequences of the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum.

Gleick either knows or should know that most global warming “skeptics” believe the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age and that human activity is a partial cause. By erroneously claiming that these two banal questions define the split between “alarmists” and “skeptics,” Gleick reveals his deceitfulness or ignorance on the core issues that divide “alarmists” and “skeptics.”

Finally, Gleick asks for the Heartland Institute to publicly reveal all the names of its donors. The Heartland Institute used to do so, while similarly appealing to other groups to do the same. However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors while simultaneously refusing to release the names of their own donors. It is funny how Gleick rants against the alleged harassment of Katharine Hayhoe yet remains silent about the harassment of people who disagree with him. This further reveals Gleick’s appalling lack of objectivity, as does Gleick’s call for the Heartland Institute to release the names of its donors while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of global warming activist groups have been far less transparent than the Heartland Institute.

Of course, Gleick’s attempts to make Heartland Institute funding an issue while ignoring the less transparent funding reports of global warming activist groups with 10, 20, or even 80 times the funding of the Heartland Institute is a tired and sad tactic used by global warming alarmists who try desperately to take attention away from scientific facts and objective scientific data. I can see why Gleick views these scientific facts and objective data as a “parallel universe” that makes his “head spin.”

@eonomart: You seem to have forgotten that James Taylor isn’t a scientist. He his a lawyer who is paid by the Heartland Institute to lobby against policies that would impact its fossil fuel membership.

In contrast, Dr. Gleick is an actual scientist and he cites the actual scientific data by actual scientific organizations and other actual scientific researchers that have led to the actual scientific state-of-the-science.

I do wish you’d pay attention. It is Mr. Taylor who raised the topic of the Heartland Institute’s funding.

Although you give me good reason to doubt that you read Mr. Taylor’s column this week, here is the relevant bit in case you’ve forgotten:

“The Heartland Institute does indeed receive approximately $7 million in annual funding (with relatively little coming from corporations and only a very small fraction coming from corporations having anything to do with the global warming debate).”

GM, if you disapprove of discussions of funding sources, please lodge your complaint with Mr. Taylor instead of me. Since Mr. Taylor introduced the issue of funding sources into the conversation, your concern about enacting a ban on the topic should be taken up with him.

You refer to Forbes member Cyrus Pinkerton as an “anonymous person.” Can you tell me how you determined Cyrus Pinkerton is an “anonymous person?”

I’m curious too why you identify anonymity as a relevant factor in judging the content of a comment. If I remember correctly, you’ve raised the topic of anonymity twice in the past two months. In both instances you made what appear to be reckless accusations about Forbes users (David and Cyrus) the basis of your rebuttal, attacking them based on your perception that they are “anonymous.” On the other hand, I’ve never seen you level similar accusations against Forbes users like economart, agwscam, richardcnz and others with whom you find yourself in agreement. Do you agree that in honest debate, ad hominem attacks of this sort have no place?

“Commenter “cyruspinkerton” cites meteorologist Jeff Masters to bolster his viewpoint. Ironic, considering that when anybody doubting the idea of man-caused global warming cites a skeptic meteorologist, a chorus of the opposition howls that such meteorologists lack the requisite expertise in climate science.”

“I’ve been a meteorologist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen a year like 2011 in terms of extreme weather events.”

Now, a question for the sane people: does Jeff Masters’ opinion about the extreme weather events of 2011 require “expertise in climate science?” The obvious answer is no.

Unfortunately russellc00k’s red herring is typical of the way the science denial crew operates. Because they can’t win the argument on facts and reason, they resort to argument based on erroneous claims and logical fallacies.

“The public is not told where skeptics are wrong, we are told to ignore them because they’re on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. Problem is, we have yet to see a solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation.”

Oh really? Not a “solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation?” Don’t you get the news under that rock you call home?

Consider this evidence…

- (From the Guardian, 28 June 2011)

“One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world’s largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.”

- Patrick Michaels admits that “40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources. Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a “wise use” group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper’s magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests… In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association “contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels.” (from ExxonSecrets)

There really is no excuse for russellc00k’s ignorance of the financial relationship between the fossil fuel industry and the climate science denial industry. And now that I’ve provided a sample of the vast amount of evidence linking the two, russellc00k will establish himself as a science denial troll if he continues in his ignorance.

“Cyrus claims global warming must be a crisis because a large insurance corporation says natural disasters caused record economic damage last year.”

Actually, no, I didn’t claim anything about global warming being a “crisis.” Are you really so desperate that you need to lie? Or is this just your usual straw man tactic? Either way, it’s really pathetic.

Try to argue facts, Jimbo. I can’t stop you from pulling something out of your backside and claiming it as a fact, and I can’t keep you from creating straw man arguments because you don’t have the skill to debate honestly, but you’re really embarrassing yourself by relying so frequently on tactics that would disqualify you from a middle school debate.

And then you extended your lie with this: “In other words, an anonymous person makes the remarkable claim that because a tsunami and earthquake devastated Japan last year, humans must be creating a global warming crisis.”

That statement is so far from the truth I think you must have pulled it from Gary Marshall’s backside. I realize you have little or no regard for the truth, but from the point of view of a public relations guy like you, isn’t it bad to be caught in such an obvious lie? Doesn’t it damage whatever might be left of your credibility, Jimbo? And since you’re one of the faces of climate science denial, when you discredit yourself by lying in such an obvious way, doesn’t it discredit your clients in the fossil fuel industry and their cause?

Think about it, Jimbo. This gig won’t last forever, especially not with the facts against you. What will you do when you lose this one? Go back to Big Tobacco and help them sell cigarettes to kids? Or maybe help the mining industry convince people that higher concentrations of arsenic in drinking water is beneficial? Don’t forget to mention that you took a health and safety class in high school so that the Heartland Institute can list you as a “public health expert.”

“Further in his post, the anonymous person produced a quote from an insurance industry spokesman using global warming as an excuse to charge customers higher premiums. When objective data show declining trends in tornado, hurricane and drought frequency, but an insurance industry spokesman nevertheless uses global warming myths as an excuse to charge its customers higher premiums”

Wow! James Taylor is accusing the insurance industry of blatant fraud! I wonder what the insurance industry would think of this accusation. I’d better forward it to them to see if they have a response.

Russell “without this one reason for us to ignore the skeptic scientists, we would then be obligated to listen to them, because that is the responsible thing to do.”

OK. Listen to them. Then check the facts they claim AND all the other facts that they DON’T mention. Maybe they don’t know them, maybe they ‘forgot’, maybe they deliberately didn’t mention them, even though they do know them.

Then form your own conclusion. My conclusion (and this is the polite version) are mendacious, manipulative schemers seeking to confuse people with selective representations of the truth and an appeal to our baser tribal instincts.

When we hear bad news we tend to react poorly to those who give that news. But we get over it.

Imagine some crowd of people at a public meeting where an official is delivering some unpleasant news. The crowd might initially be angry & hostile but when they have time to think it through they will probably understand. Now imagine a few individuals start circulating among the crowd whispering ‘Its all a con, a fraud, they don’t know what they are talking about, they just want your money, freedom, liberty, whatever. See, I have a few scraps of paper here that PROVE they are lying’.

These people are seeking to ensure that the crowd doesn’t calm down, and is even led to think the person telling them the bad news is lying.

The old term for people whose job it was to work the crowd like this was ‘Rabble Rousers’.

And that is Mr Taylor’s job. He is employed as a Rabble Rouser, although no doubt with a good haircut and an expensive suite.

So when he hands you his scrap of paper with his few ‘facts’, if you feel inclined to listen to him, ask yourself Why? Why would I place more trust in a paid lobbyist than people who are actually qualified in the field.

If you are ill, would you trust your Doctor? Or a lawyer telling you that your Doctor is a quack and he knows this because he has read a couple of articles about medicine in ‘Popular Science’?

Don’t you believe it Peter. Taylor needs to be very well informed to prioritise which science & news he needs to trash, mis-report or ignore. This sort of ‘seeming ignorance’ of so much actually takes a lot of work – I’m sure Taylor puts in a lot of work to earn his salary.

Why not put up another post on another area of AGW science and wait for Taylor to come back with his criticism? He will. Thats what he is paid to do. Contrive ways to try and trash things that his paymasters want trashed. Nice little Earner I suppose, if you have the stomach for it.

Well thank you so much for responding to my question about the moon’s daytime temperatures.

So the earth’s greenhouse gases also work to keep the sun’s energy off the surface of the earth leaving it cooler in the daytime than it would be without such heat trapping gases. This is a revelation. You are the very first person to answer this question. What a miracle!

So the more heat trapping gases there are in the earth’s atmosphere, the less the sun’s rays penetrate to the earth’s surface.

Why this runs counter to everything I have ever heard about AGW. The more moisture in the air, the cooler the earth’s surface shall become.

So Man is in no danger after all from its own carbon emissions. Blessed are the meek.

By the way, since your memory does not seem to extend beyond a week, here is a previous post covering the funding received by the pro-AGW crowd. Its so much more than one could imagine. So by your bizarre reasoning, if the funding source determines the recipient’s conclusion, do explain the following outcomes:

@@@@ How much money has Greenpeace, Wikipedia, the WRI and other environmental organizations received from government organizations like the EPA, or even oil companies like the hated BP?

#### According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.”

Gee, didn’t Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank?

$10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?

But that’s just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.”

Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:

that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment” that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”

The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launch ExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Let’s see, which all adds up to…wait for it…$642 million. #####

I think your argument goes that if one questioning the AGW theory receives a penny from supposedly sympathetic organizations, then he must be corrupt. And one in favour of AGW receiving funds from the same retains his scientific integrity.

Whether you know enough math, physics and basic biology has yet to be established.

In other words, Bob Armstrong’s statement represents nothing more than an unsubstantiated, self-serving claim to some level of “expertise” that he believes gives him an exemption from argument based on facts and reason. Include me among the unimpressed.

Lovely. And exactly what proof do you have showing the money received by Dr Soon resulted in which errors in his scientific assessments, that can be traced back to instructions on what to write from Exxon?

As I said before, this is guilt-by-association, particularly when you are unable to the specific money trail details. Try taking this kind of prosecutorial approach into a court of law and see how far you get with it.

(fixed the following q & a for you): “Now, a question for the sane people: does Jeff Masters’ opinion about the extreme weather events of 2011 require ‘expertise in climate science?’ The obvious answer is YES.”

Of course it does, as the conclusion is that man-caused global warming causes extreme weather, and that the current weather is unprecedented. Certainly commenter “cyruspinkerton” would be obligated to agree with this since so many followers of the IPCC and Al Gore are so quick to apply this requirement to any skeptic meteorologists who offer their opinions about extreme weather NOT being any confirmation of the phenomenon. Notice how commenter “cyruspinkerton” completely sidestepped this inexplicable double-standard. Ironic how he uses this as a definition of how “deniers” supposedly operate, when by this very example we all see that it is how his side of the issue often behaves. E.g. the science being “settled”, thus any opposition to it must be motivated by corrupt or illogical reasons.

Replying to this particular comment is almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Notice that despite the best efforts of commenter “cyruspinkerton” to portray contributions as smoking gun evidence, this shows nothing more than …… industry contributions to organizations. Repeating my challenge above, “SHOW US YOUR SPECIFIC PROOF THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SKEPTIC CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN EXCHANGE FOR FALSE FABRICATED CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS!”

There really is no excuse for commenter “cyruspinkerton’s” inability to provide specific evidence of corrupt agreements proving a conspiracy between the fossil fuel industry and skeptics. And since “cyruspinkerton” has provided a sample what may be nothing more than an industry contributing to an organization that it happens to agree with, “cyruspinkerton” will establish himself or herself as a common sense denier troll if we are blessed with more such failures to meet such a simple challenge.

Commenter “glenntamblyn”: Is this the best you can do? I have listened to the skeptics AND the promoters of man-caused global warming, that is entirely the point of this all. The two sides contradict each other, and in an effort to get to the bottom of the issue, I’m met with comments like this, where the skeptics are portrayed as nothing more than rabble-rousers to a phenomenon that is said to be ‘settled science’ by individuals who aren’t even capable of pointing to who established that a scientific consensus exists or who had the authority to determine which scientists belong to the consensus and which are excluded.

That’s the irony here, when enough analysis is done, we DO have what you describe, but in a counter-opposite way: People like Peter Gleick and operatives from Greenpeace handing out scraps of paper with a few “facts”, telling everyone to avoid whistleblower critics because those people are crooks….. but when you try to find out what evidence there is to prove this corruption, it turns out the only thing Gleick & friends have to rely on are literally unsupportable guilt-by-association accusations.

If you are asked forgo the use of your car to save the planet, do you ignore scientists saying this is a premature decision who laboriously write a pair of multi-hundred page reports citing thousands of peer reviewed science journal papers to back their claims, and instead place all your trust in people who refuse to debate, hide their science data, and label their critics as crooks despite incontrovertible evidence to prove that?

“The public is not told where skeptics are wrong, we are told to ignore them because they’re on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. Problem is, we have yet to see a solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation.”

russellc00k was proven wrong in his assertion–many of the so-called climate “skeptics” are funded by the fossil fuel industry and examples were provided. So, for the record, russellc00k began his crusade by showing his ignorance of the connection between the fossil fuel industry and science denial.

russellc00k now wants to compound his error by insisting that the financial link between oil & coal companies and climate “skeptics” has no bearing on the work of these scientists. Once again, russellc00k displays his incredible ignorance of the relationship between the fossil fuel industry, policy organizations like the Heartland Institute that specialize in science denial and the scientists who associate with them.

Take Willie Soon for example. Soon is or has been associated with the following science denial policy organizations, all of which receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, directly or indirectly:

To be absolutely clear about this, Soon has many significant ties to policy organizations that pursue public policy based on opposition to regulation of CO2 emissions. These organizations are all funded by the fossil fuel industry. In addition, Soon receives huge funding directly from the fossil fuel industry to support his work.

These facts alone raise serious questions about the credibility of Soon’s research.

Now, if Soon’s work were truly independent and not influenced by his funding sources, it would be expected that at least some small bit of his research would lead to results that proved unfavorable to his fossil fuel industry clients. But by what appears to be the most remarkable of coincidences, every bit of his work produces results favorable to his clients.

Even more problematic is Soon’s interest in topics well outside his area of expertise. For example, did you know that Soon (an aerospace engineer) also claims to be an expert regarding the environmental and health risks associated with mercury? To the great surprise of no one, Soon’s work in this area claims to show that the impact of mercury released into the environment by coal burning power plants is minimal. Oh, and by the way, his work in this area of Soon’s “expertise” was funded by the coal industry.

Similarly Soon apparently claims expertise in the field of polar bear ecology. You see, according to the research of Soon and colleagues, polar bear habitat loss resulting from global warming is not serious. Of course, Soon’s polar bear ecology study was funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation. Isn’t it amazing how that worked out?

Now, as russellc00k points out, none of this evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the integrity of Soon’s research is completely compromised by the fact that he’s in bed with the fossil fuel industry. Similarly, the fact that the strange, single, older gentleman in the neighborhood who likes to dress up like a clown and invite young boys over to his house for cookies and milk isn’t automatically proven guilty when the decomposing bodies of small children are discovered in his basement. However, any sane and rational person would definitely suspect the clown of foul play.

russellc00k doesn’t seem to understand how a court of law works. US criminal courts work on the standard of “reasonable doubt.” In civil cases, courts adopt the standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, there is no doubt that it would be reasonable and fair to conclude that the integrity and credibility of Soon’s work has been compromised by his connection to the fossil fuel industry.

According to russellc00k, commenting on the extreme weather events of 2011 requires expertise in climate science. What are the logical consequences of russellc00k’s position?

One consequence is that russellc00k is not qualified to comment on the extreme weather events of 2011 since he lacks expertise in climate science. A second consequence is that James Taylor is not qualified to comment on the extreme weather events of 2011 since he lacks expertise in climate science.

Therefore, according to russellc00k, James Taylor should shut up and remove this week’s blog entry. Unfortunately russellc00k will not be back to comment further this week because he needs to remove himself from the conversation as a result of his lack of relevant expertise.

@ cyruspinkerton I have attended a couple of Heartland’s conferences , and had my admission fee comped for one . See my http://CoSy.com for just about anything you want to know about me .

As a result of some email exchanges , Joe Bast of Heartland invited me to create an “Essential_Physics” page on their new climatewiki.org . I have not mentioned it because , 1) being an unremunerated activity , it’s difficult to find time to work on it , and 2) a couple of months ago the website suffered some sort of attack and the posting of images has not yet been reestablished making it not worth my time to work on until that’s fixed .

As I state at the foot of that page , “… this site needs the knowledges of more minds . However , the purpose of this site is to nail down the physics . Thus only data and explicit experimentally verified or verifiable quantitative , computable assertions , ie , equations and their explanations and proofs are admissible .” I have felt frustrated at not having the page in shape to invite other input , but I had wanted at a minimum to incorporate my implementation of the computation of the temperature of anisotropically irradiated anisotropically shaded gray balls in a half dozen lines of an array programming language , and hopefully the few additional lines to extend the computation to full spectral maps so the bulk of the 10c “unexplained” difference between our observed temperature and that of a gray ball can be addressed before promulgating it . ( I don’t know what spectral data is available , nor do I have the time to evaluate it ; I’m just a good array language programmer only involved in this issue because of the mendacious mediocrity I see being foisted by the doomsters . )

As James Taylor’s number of $7e6 for Heartland’s yearly budget indicates , us realists are generally operating on a shoe string , or at our own expense compared to the massive cash flows available from global governments and other watermelon groups . The idea that we are whores , in it for the cash , would be laughable if anything about this attack on human welfare and freedom ( not to mention all green , and therefore all , life ) were laughable .

That’s all the time I can afford on this dreck today . My response to glenntamblyn’s more substantive comments will have to wait til at least tomorrow .

Now that I’ve opened my kimono , how about you cyrus ? You seem to have lots of time for these battles . Are you somebody’s whore ?

“… this site needs the knowledges of more minds . However , the purpose of this site is to nail down the physics .”

Bob, if one of the purposes of the site is to “nail down the physics,” why didn’t the Heartland Institute recruit a physicist to create the “Essential Physics” page?

And if another purpose of the site is to create a complete and accurate overview of climate science subjects, why isn’t the Heartland Institute’s “climate wiki” a real wiki (i.e., open to input from all interested users)?

Let’s re-examine the definition of “wiki.”

1. A Web site that allows visitors to make changes, contributions, or corrections. (Merriam-Webster)

2. A Web site that allows anyone to add, delete, or revise content by using a web browser. (Dictionary.com)

One of the important elements in these definitions is the fact that real wikis allow contributions from all visitors. The Heartland Institute fake wiki requires pre-registration, a process that amounts to vetting by the Heartland Institute. In other words, the Heartland Institute’s “climate wiki” is a propaganda site masquerading as a wiki.

“The idea that we are whores , in it for the cash , would be laughable if anything about this attack on human welfare and freedom ( not to mention all green , and therefore all , life ) were laughable .”

Oh, I see. I didn’t realize that climate science is an attack on freedom, human welfare and, apparently, all plant and animal life. Satan is responsible, right?

By the way, do you consider yourself a “freedom fighter” in your crusade against climate science?

Having for years watched James Taylor dispense Heartland’s inimitable mixture of drivel and disinformation from up close and afar, I must remind him once again that just as college professors have little difficulty in grading climatology 101 exams, intelligent laymen can recognize cant when they read it.

Forbes is marketed as a financial tool for the numerate, not a repository for counterfactual ideological detritus masquerading as climate science, and Steve should take note that Taylor’s serial truth bending has no fit place in a fiduciary journal.

Gleick. You are an absolute moron when it comes to science. You call yourself a climate scientist? What a freaking joke. There has been NO scientific link to “climate change” and extreme weather events. Put up or shut up. Give us the links to published peer reviewed scientific papers that show the cause and effect.

Gleick. Science is not conducted by consensus.

Climate does change. It’s been happening for millions of years. And Gleick, tell us why we had 30 years of cooling from the 1940′s to the 1970′s when CO2 levels were rising? And why there has been no temperature increases since 1998?

The IPCC models are failures. They simply cannot predict climate decades into the future. They have been tested, and are simply crap. The doom and gloom model predictions of future temperature increase are bogus (see D. Koutsoyiannis, et al 2010):

The vast majority of climate scientists understand that anthropogenic global warming is real, important, and this understanding is based on piles of good science, but Forbes gives voice to the at this point utterly irrelevant climate denialists.

In areas of wildlife conservation and management, national parks, and so on, deer populations, predator behaviors, and human hunters are all taken into account when deciding how many permits to let, what areas should be off limits to hunting, etc. but despite the fact hat 99.99% of wildlife biologists are sure bigfoot does not exist, there are still people who believe! Forbes should extend its sympathy for science denialists beyond issues of climate into areas of life science, in particular zoology.

Oh and don’t forget about Chupacabra! Some people think they are real too! And aliens!

Change your name to “Captain Obvious”. Yes, global warming is real. Global cooling is real. Climate change is real. Unfortunately, there are piles of bad science that support the AGW hypothesis.

Climategate, the lack of warming, the failure of the IPCC models, etc., and “scientists” like James Hansen, who would do better at selling snake oil in a traveling circus, Al Gore, all make me disgusted with the state of climate “science” (and I use the term “science loosely”)

As a scientist myself, I have no patience for these pretenders. They make these grand pronouncements, and the gullible follow like a bunch of lemmings.

The U.N is totally corrupt, and the IPCC as well.

AGW has become a religion, a faith based religion that leaves true science by the wayside. It has also become a scary political movement with fascist tendencies comparable to Germany in the 30′s.

And I am tired of it, and in no mood to suffer these complete and utter fools.

So Greg, you can stuff the term “denier” up your big fat as*, you ****ing moron.

Greg Laden doesn’t seems to realize that previously Peter Gleick offered up a January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com where he wasted the opportunity to present some of the “science” you talk about and turned it into a diatribe about anyone that doesn’t share his delusional views of this topic of anthropogenic global warming, which is almost as stupid as you now wanting to interject Bigfoot into the discussion. It would appear that when an idiot goes to Harvard and receives a PhD ["I have a very fancy PhD from Harvard (written in Latin and everything) in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, as well as a Masters Degree in the same subjects (also from Harvard). I was awarded a Medical Doctorate from Harvard as well, but that was a clerical error and it was quickly revoked, much to the annoyance of my patients …"] ( I will not comment on what kind of system a university would operate under to make this type of mistake and if that would distract from other things said school might represent.) then you end up with an educated idiot.

That you, Greg Laden, are guilty of criminal activity is not a secret when you alter what someone post and leave their name on the altered post. If you do not like it, then delete it but do not reword it and leave the name on the forgery. Please note that this was in response to the hockey stick data tampering issue.

This is what I posted: “I am getting a first hand look at some of the AGW crowds dishonesty on this blog that Greg maintains. If such small players can’t stand the truth, then it is no wonder that the ones in the big leagues are total lying, dishonest folks. It is somewhat ironic that basically this was all about honesty and now we get an example of that when some one changes a poster’s links. In other words, data tampering. Is that being honest?”

This is what you distorted it into. 19 I am getting a first hand look at some of the AGW shits dishonesty on this shit blog that Greg maintains. If such small players can’t stand the truth, then it is no wonder that the ones in the big leagues are total lying, dishonest shits. Lying shits. Posted by: John D. Swallow | August 24, 2011 6:46 AM http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/08/hockey_stick_data_tampering_in.php

Gleick is a pretender. His background at Yale was an undergraduate degree in “jock” science. You know, the non accredited ones that athletes would take? Gleick is a political scientist, an IPCC propagandist.

“A massive tornado outbreak between April 25 and 28 of this year (2011) spanned five states in the southeastern United States. The deadliest day was on April 27, when 122 tornadoes killed 316 people across parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia. Fifteen of the reported tornadoes were deemed “violent,” meaning they ranked 4 or 5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. This outbreak is the third deadliest in U.S. history, and it contributed to 2011 being tied as the second deadliest tornado year on record. In addition to the death toll, more than 2,400 people were injured and the area experienced more than $4.2 billion in property loss.”

The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season officially ends Wednesday, having produced a total of 19 tropical storms of which seven became hurricanes, including three major hurricanes. This level of activity matched NOAA’s predictions and continues the trend of active hurricane seasons that began in 1995.

Poor James Taylor–I can feel his anguish. After being thoroughly admonished and embarrassed by Dr. Gleick, James Taylor is crying like a baby with a soiled diaper.

I understand, Jimbo–the facts are against you, the science is against you, logic is against you, and it’s just not fair that smarter and better informed people keep beating you in debate! I really feel for you, buddy, but try not to lash out with childish taunts and desperate accusations–it just shows how truly weak and pathetic your position is.

Now, your insinuation that I’m “anonymous” is extremely amusing. Do you require a social security number to verify my identity? Do you want a home address so that you can send the internet police to my house to check the name on my passport?

What’s the end game here, Jimbo? Do you want Forbes to change its policy about usernames? Or do you just want Forbes to censor the comments left by people who have usernames that you suspect are being used to protect their anonymity (i.e., people who disagree with you and keep beating you in debate)?

Look Jimbo, be honest here for a minute. Seriously, I’m only asking for a minute of honesty, then you can go back to your normal ways. Isn’t your “anonymous ‘cyruspinkerton” complaint just a diversionary tactic designed to dismiss my remarks without addressing the substance? Isn’t it just a cheap debate tactic you’ve employed because you don’t have the ammunition to win the argument on merit? Isn’t it evidence that you are desperately trying to stay afloat in a sea of facts that contradict each of your bits of programmed misinformation?

Please don’t mope about this defeat too long, Jimbo. Cry it all out, then wipe away the tears and come back next week with a brand new bunch of anti-science gibberish for another blog entry. After all, if you lie persistently enough, there will always be some idiots and fools who’ll buy into your story. Just remember, it worked with tobacco–think of the great service the Heartland Institute provided to smokers by encouraging them to ignore the science and the health warnings and just keep on puffin’! What a proud legacy that is.

Let me start by saying I am a layman with no specific advanced knowledge of global warming science. I do care a lot about the environment and the debate about global warming.

I find this thread and its comments instructive.

Science is all about disagreement. One scientist does his experiments and comes to a conclusion while another does his and comes to a different conclusion. It may take many years or decades for the scientific community to reach anything close to what could be called a consensus. How many decades has cancer research been done still with no cure(s) in sight nor a consensus regarding the “truth” of what causes cancer. Why is global warming science any different? We are in the early stages of discovering all the causes of global warming much less what the dominant cause is, if there is even one dominant cause.

There are good people and VERY credible scientists on both sides of this argument who have done excellent research but who come to different conclusions. WOW! What a concept. Science is not settled by one or two experiments or a hundred or even a thousand (see cancer).

The science of global warming is still young. Why is it so hard for some to understand that every scientist doesn’t agree on a subject that has so many variables that it boggles the mind of this non scientist?

I am dismayed why some scientists denigrate others with name calling, calling them “anti science” etc. Religious zeal, allowing no room for disagreement, name calling, etc. is a measure of the weakness of an argument not a strength of an argument.

In my opinion, a major problem for the advocates of humans as the dominant cause of warming is precisely that they accept that there can be no disagreement with their premise. If you don’t agree, you are a heretic, to be burned at the stake at the earliest opportunity. At one time the world was thought to be flat and the sun revolved around the earth. I believe people were actually burned at the the stake for those beliefs. Don’t look now, but those heretics were right! The modern day equivalent of stake buring is no better.

The debate amongst scientists is over. They have moved on to other things. Amongst the general population like ourselves, we are still working it out. It is very clear to myself that warming is taking place.

It actually isn’t about the science, its actually about the wealth that doesn’t want to give up their cheap source of energy. The consequences are spelled out clearly by the world’s best scientists. It appears to me that we in the world are headed to more severe consequences rather than the lesser ones.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight, all that is absorbed at the surface results in warming and the emission of IR radiation; this radiation cannot freely escape into space because of absorption in the atmosphere by trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). These absorbing gases and their surrounding air warm up, emitting radiation downward, towards the Earth’s surface, as well as upward, towards space. This effectively traps part of the IR radiation between ground and the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. This reduction in the efficiency of the Earth to lose heat causes the surface temperature to rise above the effective temperature calculated above (Te) until finally, enough heat is able to escape to space to balance the incoming solar radiation. The effect is analogous to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.

The debate is over? you’re kidding right? The debate over what is over? You need to get out more and stop reading only what confirms your own biases. The debate over the causes of change in climate are just beginning. This whole thread is evidence of that. Of course it isn’t to those that have turned the debate into a religious crusade to wipe out anyone who expresses any doubt about your absolute certainty. Your first sentence is evidence of that.

There are no other sources of heat within any of the components of the climate system that could supply this much heat – certainly not from heat inside the Earth for example.

So what ever has caused this warming must be something that involves the Earth’s heat balance with the Sun & Space. Since we know that the Sun’s heat output has if anything declined slightly over the last 1/2 century, that only leaves something that effects the loss of heat to space.

The suggestion that Taylor makes, that it is a warming after the Little Ice Age doesn’t cut it. If it were mainly that we would need to see cooling in some part of the Climate. And the component of warming in the oceans is so large it simply cannot have come from any other internal source.

Since we have a very detailed understanding of how the GH Gases cause the GH Effect, from detailed data about their properties, theoretical calculations of what effect on the shape of the Earths outgoing Infra-Red radiation spectrum, and direct observations of that spectrum that match the expectation in very great detail, we have an observed mechanism that directly explains the observed warming.

Pretty solid stuff so far.

Still some debate about some aspects yes, but the ‘debate’ about the GH Gas causes of the GH Effect and AGW was held decades ago, starting in the 50′s. By the late 70′s it was pretty much settled what the main drivers were and their likely impact. It was nearly 15 years later before we obtained observational results supporting the warming predicted by theory much earlier.

As for this thread being ‘evidence’ of that!! LOL. This is the Blogosphere Garyn. This isn’t where scientific debates are held. This is just the echo chamber where we all duel to see who is least informed.

The evidence I am referring to is all the links that both sides are referring to in the thread. Many of these are linked to scientific studies. Are you saying they all worthless, including the info you refer to? I certainly wouldn’t say your info or what others have posted is useless in the debate. Besides, the debate, in my mind is not whether the earth is warming, it is what is the cause(s) and what to do about it. In that debate, there is no consensus and credible people disagree.

My point garynbower is that Taylor linked to studies about 1.5% of the Earths surface. This is actually quite meaningless in terms of assessing the Global nature of warming, including the 4 major heat sinks. Instead we need to be looking at global measures of change.

So what was Taylor’s purpose in trying to make a case against AGW in general by making reference to studies of very local changes? Simple. He is trying to anchor peoples perceptions. This is what is important to understand is that much of what people like Taylor are doing is driven by the psychology of how to influence people. Since most of us tend to draw our understanding from our local surrounds and experience and only then expand our focus and perceptions outwards, any tactic that can be used to re-inforce peoples inate tendency to remain local in their thinking is psychologically powerful.

I have 7 years personal experience debating and exploring AGW – The Science, how it is reported, the endless misconceptions that people have about it and the way various so called ‘skeptics’ – not the man in the street, but the ‘professional skeptics’ put their so called cases forward.

From this I can draw one primary conclusion. In my observation there is not one single true skeptic among ANY of the so called professional skeptics. Not One. And this is not some prejudice of mine. It is observation of what they actually do and say. And far more importantly WHAT THEY DON’T SAY!! Every single argument is carefully chosen to hide, mask & dissemble. All the while, butter isn’t melting in their mouths.

They aren’t Deniers. They are Professional Doubt Generators!

Taylor sites local US data about extreme weather events rather than global data, just as a small example. Sounds all so sincere, honest debating or some such. BS. He is ntrying to steer his audience away from looking at the Global Data.

If his ilk can succeed at that, keep peoples eye’s off the main information, then frame some ‘debate’ that is suposedly still happening then he has done his job and earned his pay packet.

The calculation of a 255 kelvin “null hypothesis” temperature for the naked earth on the Columbia.edu page is the sort amateurish nonscience that caused me to get involved , at a painful cost in time , in the battle against this profoundly anti-science anti-freedom stupidity against the molecule which is the very foundation of life . We only exist to have these ignorant battles of free minds against this global statist Lysenkoist zombie because our atmosphere began with a CO2 instead of O2 atmosphere .

My background is that of an array language programmer , a “quant” , if you will . Anyone who knows how to decompose functions into orthogonal components will know that the appropriate null hypothesis for the effect of the earth’s and its atmosphere’s spectrum is a gray ( flat spectrum ) , not the impossible sort of step function which produces that much parroted 33c gap with our observed ~ 287k — which is then attributed totally to the atmosphere .

What needs to be explained is the less than 10c warmer we are than the 279k of a gray ball in our orbit .

But most journeyman “climate scientists” don’t even understand that it doesn’t make any difference how light or dark a gray the ball is .

Why , if the “science is settled” is there no place on the web where a quantitatively educated individual can find a presentation of relevant physics comparable to other settled fields of applied physics such as electrodynamics ?

All one gets from the alarmist anti-life mob is non-quantitative analytically ignorant garbage like that Columbia parrot squawk .

@ glenntamblyn Yes , I’m referring to that linked Columbia page . The same problem exists on several Wikipedia pages controlled by “warmists” despite their errors being pointed out by numerous commenters on their discussion pages .

I would hope anyone posting here knows that the color , ie , spectrum , of a material is determined by its absorption ( conversion to thermal energy ) versus reflection at each electromagnetic wavelength . Kirchhoff ( and others ) by the mid 19th century formalized that the absorption spectrum of any substance is the same as its emission spectrum . Let’s call it ae to emphasize its just two directions thru the same filter . A flat spectrum is one in which ae is constant across all wave lengths .

The “greenhouse effect” is all about the change in the planet’s spectrum by the relatively minute change in our spectrum caused be the perhaps molecule in 10,000 of CO2 we are returning to the atmosphere from that sequestered in previous very lush epochs .

It’s the difference between our ae with the ~5800 kelvin spectrum of the 5 millionths of the total sky covered by the sun’s disk versus the near 0 temperature of the rest of the sky which determines the difference in our temperature from that of a gray ball for which ae is the same for both ranges of wavelengths . Thus for a gray ball , ae falls out of the equation and it makes no difference how light or dark a gray the ball is . In our orbit , it will come to about 279 kelvin . That explains the temperature due to simply the total energy impinging on the planet leaving any difference from that value purely due to the non-flatness of our actual spectrum .

The ubiquitously parroted calculation on the Columbia page uses the approximate observed value of 0.7 for the earth+atmosphere’s ae with respect to the sun . But then , rather than using the obvious blues and greens and whites of the earth’s surface , its measurable spectral map , assumes the naked earth radiates to the near 0 of space as a piece of coal with an ae of 1.0 . That’s the crude , counter-factual step function I’m referring to . It has no purpose other than to produce the scariest number possible . There is no way you can come to an accurate evaluation of the atmosphere’s spectral contribution from such a flawed foundation .

There are some flaws in your argument. The 0.7 figure is for all the components of the Earth’s Albedo – Reflection/scattering of the atmosphere, reflection of clouds and reflection off the surface. Also included is absorption of incoming Solar Radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere in the calculation. Take a look at this paper which has a good diagram (Fig 1 at the end) of the energy fluxes in the climate system.

When you work out the overall absorbtivity of the SURFACE you get around 0.87. This absorbtivity is then the basis for any subsequent emission.

I assume the eqn you have an issue with is the 3rd one – (4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 – a) πR2So – that the right hand term doesn’t include an ae term. However the equation would still then be wrong because you are including the surface ae term on the right but aren’t including it on the left so a correct form for this would actually be:

(4πR2 ) ae σTe4 = (1 – (R + A)) ae πR2So

where R is reflection from atmosphere & clouds & A is absorption by the atmosphere. However, even this isn’t correct because ae varies with frequency. So observation gives us the absorbtivity of the Earth in toto in the visible & near IR as around 0.87. However its emissivity as measured inn the far IR is more in the range 0.96 to 0.99, lets say 0.975 average – see this article at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model the section on Zero Dimensional models. So that converts our equation to:

So yes, a difference. But not much. And that is why the scientists don’t bother using it for what are only approximate and indicative equations. They know full well the precise form. But this form is useful as a simplified short-hand

I think you are reading too much into that eqn. It is not presented as the precise and exact mathematical form or the complete picture. And pages like the one you referenced are not intended to give the fully detailed description. Rather simplified overviews for a more lay audience. That figure of 33K is only a rough indicative number, it isn’t meant to be precise.

If you think about it, a world without GH gases would probably actually be much colder than this number. If you consider that temperatures just 8-10 deg C colder than now were associated with Ice Ages and huge ice sheets, how much further would the ice extend if the temps were of the order of 30 DegC colder. And Ice is highly reflective. So with much more ice than during an Ice Age, particularly at lower latitudes where the frontal area it presents to the Sun is greater, how much more sunlight would be reflected to space. If the value for total Albedo for the planet started to droip significantly below 0.7 because of so much Ice, what does that do when you plug it into the eqn. Te drops even lower.

I think a mistake you are making is looking at information that is being presented in a relatively simplified form for general consumption, seeing flaws in it that are a PRODUCT OF THE SIMPLIFICATION PROCESS, then assuming that this reflect flaws in the underlying, warts and all maths. That combined with you having only an understanding of concepts (like Absorptivity/Emissivity) to one level and not the more detailed understanding can lead you to jump to the wrong conclusions.

When you see something that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, rather than assuming that the theory is wrong, consider the possibility that you don’t have a detailed enough understanding and that you may be reading simplified descriptions. If it seems wrong, dig deeper first.

Sorry this has been delayed till the weekend . Hope you see it so don’t think I didn’t respond .

Frankly I think Trenberth’s 1 dimensional energy budgets are one of the causes of the gross retardation of the field compared with any comparable field of applied physics . They remind me of old ARRL illustrations explaining the ionosphere reflection of shortwave radio . They make people think that the effect of CO2 is somewhere up in the sky rather than in the first 10s of meters above the hot sunlit ground . But worse than that , it’s not possible to model a sphere in one dimension . The equilibrium temperature depends on where the color ( spectrum ) of the sphere is what relative to its radiant sources .

| 20120121.112947 |

Why are such crude approximations continuously promulgated in an era of , I assume , rather broad specturm global satellite maps .

Your excusing of the ubiquitous maximally biased 33c number as being just a simplification for mass consumption , and further , saying that the deficit could be even greater shows a lack of understanding why that number is so extreme .

As an APL programmer , I think a substantial part of the problem is continued use of antiquated scalar programming languages . As I mentioned elsewhere , on my http://CoSy.com I have in half a dozen lines of an APL I implement the basic formulas for anisotropically irradiated anisotropically shaded gray balls . couple of more lines , one for Planck’s thermal radiation function , will allow computation for any full spectral global maps .

Give me the full spectrum of snow , and I’ll tell you what the temperature of a snowball in our orbit will be .

The reason the gray body case is the appropriate “null hypothesis” is the same reason black & white movies and TV preceded color . Color requires additional information at each pixel .

You excuse that Columbia crap as being dumbed down for the hoi polloi . But that’s in a course in a Ivy League school supposedly teaching “environmental sciences” It’s propaganda . It’s absolutely pathetic compared to any other field of applied physics .

If you are truly interested in “nailing down the physics” , as opposed to parroting watermelon pablum , and if you are capable of understanding array ( matrix ) computations , and if you know the available spectral data bases , which I have neither the time nor inclination to sort thru , read the material on my website , and the nascent ClimateWiki.org page and contact me directly to help flesh them out .

Couldn’t clearly see where to comment at your site – seemed broken. Besides, this discussion started at Forbes so it should be carried oout here – can’t disappoint the lurkers.

By the way, what is watermelon pablum?

I have read through the articles on your site. I must admit, from the perspective of making a case to others you have made a bit of a rod for your own back. I come from one of those ‘scalar programming’ backgrounds you mention and I found the APL a little hard to follow. Surely you can just express it as eqns and be done with it.

That said, I still disagree with what you ‘seem’ to have done. And it all revolves around how you are handling Absorptivity/Emissivity. To simplify things, rather than look at Earth/Sun geometry I will simply work from the observed intensity of the solar flux at the Earth’s radius – 1360-1365 W/M^2, depending on which satellite is taking the measurements. After allowing for the surface area of the Earth vs its Frontal area to the Sun, this gives us the fairly standard figure of 341 W/M^2 arriving at the outer atmosphere. This is the starting point for any calculation of the Earth’s possible temperatures.

If the Earth is a perfect Black Body, then S/B gives us Te = 278.5 K

If the Earth has an atmosphere that reflects and absorbs sunlight and clouds that reflect sunlight then (using the numbers from Trenberth et al) total reflected is 23%. But then if the surface is a perfect black body. S/B then gives us Te = 260.7 K

If we then include that the surface isn’t a black body but reflects 12.5%. So presumably Surface Absorptivity is 0.875. However we have to allow for the component of the incoming solar absorbed by the atmosphere – the 78 W/M^2. This doesn’t vanish. In a totally GH free atmosphere, half of this will reach the surface, the other half be radiated back to space. Apply S/B to this with surface Absorptivity of .875 and S/B gives us 250.4K

My point in this is not so much to argue any one case. It is to highlight just how variable the result can be depending on what values one uses for A/E – 278.5K down to 250.4K

Therefore, the key question when looking at the ‘No GH Gas temperature question’ is. Do we have our understanding of A/E really, really right. Because it makes such a difference. In your APL code that you published, you seemed (if I am deciphering the APL correctly) to have looked at several scenarios. But I couldn’t see one where you explicitly looked at real world A/E values. So if you want to convince me or anyone, shor that your model of A/E is really robust.

I also found this comment telling and disturbing:

“Confirming that Venus is much hotter than any simply radiantly heated object in its orbit could be . There must be some other internal source of heat . ( Note in comparison that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2 yet its temperature matchs the S-B&K calculation . ) I do not understand how James Hansen could possibly have claimed that Venus’s mean temperature could be due to heat trapping of any sort . I understand even less how such claims could have survived the most cursory “peer” review .”

Bob. The basic proposition is that the GH Effect is what causes the extra heating. Your statement seems contradictory.

Also, your reference to the Martian atmosphere and its % CO2. It isn’t the % that counts. It is the absolute amount. So yes, Mars might be 95% CO2. But its atmosphere is really thin. So the absolute amount of CO2 is low. Venus has a very dense atmosphere so a similar % of CO2 has a profoundly greater impact. Key thing to focus on. When a photon starts its journey out to space. How many GH molecules are there blocking its path. Not percentages. Absolute numbers.

Finally, you make reference to the Saturation argument. This idea was demonstrated false over 1/2 a century ago. You might want to start your research on this by looking at the work of Gilbert Plass. But I think it reflects a lack of understanding on your part of how the GH Effect works. Let me try to explain:

IR Photons leave the Earth’s surface and head upwards. Within 10′s of meters the number of CO2 & H2O molecules present means that virtually all of them are absorbed, apart from in a certain range of wavelengths called the Atmospheric Window. After they have been absorbed, the additional energy imparted to the molecules that absorbed them ends up ‘going somewhere’. Many people might think that this ‘somewhere’ is about the GH molecules reradiating that energy. But this is very much a trivial aspect. Far and away the largest factor is that collisions between molecules in the atmosphere quickly transfer this additional energy to all the surrounding molecules – mainly N2 & O2. Next, all the molecules in the atmosphere will tend to spontaneously radiate new photons of IR light according to the Planck Function. Again mainly N2 & O2. Which is promptly absorbed again by other GH molecules. And so a dance ensues. Radiate, Absorb, Distribute by collisions, Radiate, Absorb …

So how does any radiation ever get out to space?

Eventually, through random molecular movement (enhanced MASSIVELY by prosesses such as convection), this energy makes its way to the upper atmosphere. Here, at higher altitude, the atmosphere has thinned, and their are fewer GH molecules. So the likelihood of an emitted photon being able to make it out to Space unimpeded starts to climb. Eventually, above a certain altitude, the photons get to stream away to space. This is referred to in Radiative Transfer Physics as the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA)

The important point is that the amount of energy that molecules higher up can emit is limited by the air temperature. In colder air less is emitted. So what governs how much energy reaches space depends on the altitude at which the path to space becomes clear (for that frequency) and what the temperature is at that altitude. Colder air, less radiation.

This is a central part of the GH Effect & AGW. If changes in GH gas concentrations result in the ‘clear path to space’ altitude increasing, then the air temperature will be colder and less heat can escape. It doesn’t matter how much heat there is below that. Temperature at altitude is the restriction that governs how much heat can get out. So if this ‘clear path to space’ altitude increases due to more GH Gases, less heat gets out because these higher altitudes are colder.

How does the system compensate for this? Heat accumulates below. Eventually this heat starts to warm the air above and the ‘clear path to space’ altitude starts to warm, allowing more heat to leave, restoring the balance. But without warming below, this warming above can’t happen.

So to your saturation argument. Yes CO2 (& H2O and the other GH gases) may be largely saturated at sea level. Not absorbing all they can, they are miles away from that. Rather absorbing everything there is to absorb. More GH gases don’t have much impact on this. However, what the effect of more GH gases is on the ‘clear path to space’ altitude above is REALLY important. As concentrations increase, the altitude at which these concentrations, in the thinner air, are diffuse enough to allow escape to space increases. And the temperature decreases. So the amount of heat radiated decreases. So the Earth shifts into radiative imbalance. The surface warms and eventually this produces warming higher in the atmosphere so that the new ‘clear path to space’ altitude gets warmer, thus more radiation, restoring the balance.

If you want to have a look at a couple of things that show some of this, look at the following article by Prof Ray Pierre-Humbert in Physics today. He give a good over-view of some of this here: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Also go to this site from the University of Chicago. This is a caLculator based on the ModTran program, calculating the Outgoing Longwave Radiation spectrum for the planet Earth. Run the default settings. The result will show the emission spectrum for the planet. It also plots out a number of Planck Curves for different temperatures. Compare how different parts of the Earth’s spectrum correspond to different temparature curves. This is telling you the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude where that particular frequency was ‘clear to space’. Then do a what-0if. At the top of the page, set CO2 to 0 and rerun and see how much difference it makes. Also rerun at a few 1000 ppm to show how the impact of CO2 changes. Just play suck-it-and-see and let me know what you think.

For comparison, although the version of ModTran used at U Chicago is a bit old, these graphs and others from other similar calculations have been checked against the observed spectra, as measured by satellites and high altitude aircraft, and they agree extremely well. The observed spectra from above is our primary observational confirmation of the GH effect and AGW.

Glen , you seem seriously to want to understand planetary temperature rather than mindlessly flog the “watermelon pablum” ( <- mixed metaphor for biased simplifications which are supposed to satisfy the "non-scientist" sheeple ) such as the 33c BS . I think this conversation might be better handled by email or on directly on my http://CoSy.com .

I would be very interested in knowing your background . Are you perchance a student ?

My website isn't so much broken , as "venerable" , having evolved over 15 years now . I have only recently tested adding a Disqus blog widget to one page , http://cosy.com/Science/Basics.html . This discussion , one way or another needs to be included there .

The point of the APL is that it is as or more succinct as any traditional equations — but has the virtue that it executes . You will note on the tables I've been setting up on the Climatewiki.org page are designed to permit translations into other programming languages as they may be contributed . Thus it is a step backwards to not simply express the computations , and apply specific data as desired . It's interesting that because my interest was to go from temperature of sun to temperature of earth , values in terms of energy only exist in the middle of the computations , tho anybody who really understands what's going on at the level of what would be required at an undergraduate physics level should be able to refactor the expressions as desired .

I think the first indication of a profound lack of understanding of the physics is your comment "If the Earth is a perfect Black Body, then S/B gives us Te = 278.5 K" . Since at least 1860 , it has been known that that is the temperature of any uniform "gray" ( flat spectrum ) ball no matter how light or dark a gray . The experimental proof of this fact around 1830 is where I begin the Climatewiki analysis .

I'm not going to get into any specifics that you present because , unless the essential physics is groked , the rest is meaningless crap .

Again , I see you going to these 1 dimensional asserted averages . They can't possibly model a nonuniformly irradiated nonuniformly colored sphere . I will repeat again , my handful of lines of APL do . Give me tables of the radiant sources of the celestial sphere , and the matching albedos of the planet , and I'll give you its equilibrium temperature .

You are right that I looked at several scenarios , particularly what would the temperature of a ( gray ) sphere be if totally reflective on the night side , producing a maximal temperature for a gray sphere .

Let me ask you this , as a test of your understanding of the essential physics : what spectrum ( color ) sphere will create the highest temperature , given the sun's spectrum ? It's really a rather basic result in vector algebra , but I perceive is beyond the education of most journeyman "climate scientists" .

WRT the surface temperature of Venus , given that all three modes of heat flow are from hot to cold , please show me the equations by which the interior of a passively heated sphere can maintain a higher temperature than than computed for the energy impinging on it .

With respect to your comments about Plass , I've not heard of him before , nor did I find a link to his equations .

I absolutely agree with your description of the effect of CO2 and H2O transferring heat to and from the rest of the molecules of the atmosphere . Their massive effects are far and away to reduce , particularly , the diurnal variance of our temperature . Your overall description of the heat flow of the atmosphere seems pretty sensible . But my mantra is alway : show me the equations .

I think the difference in our arguments is that I contend that a ball , no matter how composed , cannot come to an equilibrium temperature greater than that computed for its spectrum given the spectra of its radiant sources . I browsed an online preprint of some recent book by Pierre-Humbert and found it to be unanalytic word waving essentially contending that an externally heated sphere can be constructed with a central temperature arbitrarily higher than that calculated by Stefan-Boltzmann & Kirchhoff for its surface . Again , show me the equations so I can implement them in equally succinct APL to convince myself . Even better , show me an experimental demonstration of the phenomenon .

The Modtran stuff suffers the same problem , from the perspective of a quantitatively proficient layman as the Trenberth article you linked . All you really get is a further dense bush into yet more thickets of references .

It happens my niece graduated last year in physics and applied math at Boulder . I inherited a copy of Griffiths "Electrodynamics" her dog had eaten . It's beautifully clear — and is more difficult a topic than heat because of curl . Where , I ask , given existential importance of the planetary temperature debate , is ANY comparable treatment of essential physics . This one dimensional crap won't cut it in an era of actual satellite spectral maps .

On the Climatewiki.org page I've outlined the sequence of components which need to be addressed working toward an understandable and computable implementation of the physics of planetary temperature — leaving non-static convection to the last . There is no question that getting into the vertical structure of the atmosphere is beyond my current understanding ; I intend to mainly be an editor making sure , as I stated , that everything posted is computable and experimentally verified .

A rather complete model in an APL should not be more than a couple of pages of succinct definitions . Back in 1989 , I was very impressed by a paper on the physics of carbon dwarf stars with brief definitions in APL inline in a dozen page paper . That's the sort of vision I have for the Heartland page .

This is all I'm going to respond to here . Please either respond on my http://cosy.com/Science/Basics.html page , or by email . As I have said , unlike what I suspect is the case for some anonymous trolls here , I wish to hell I was getting some remuneration for this substantial cost in time and effort — but I'm not .

So I’ve got 13 years on you . And for me , as a lot of “realists” , it’s a labor of fear — for the welfare of the currently living and all to follow .

For both of us , it is clearly essential to get things actually correct — not “politically correct” .

For my background , see http://cosy.com/BobA/vita.htm .

I learned APL because I realized I needed to understand multidimensional geometry and algebra to have a hope of understanding papers by such people as Christopher Zeeman which were saying non-trivial things .

So Taylor spreads his mis-information again, but now with a sanctimonious, hand over heart, piety about ‘others’ being misleading. More of the Heartland sugar coated bile from not simply the ‘black hats’, but those with black hearts.

Lets take just one example: Data about rising bad weather events. Not so says Taylor. Not SO!

Then he points us to reports from Ryan Maue about Hurricane activity IN THE USA. NCDC data about declining Torndoes IN THE USA. And one study about soil moisture.

See what he is trying to do. Keep his audience focused on the Good Old US of A. Do as much as possible to deflect our attention away from the G part of AGW – Global. Try to keep peoples attention focused on the parochial perspective.

And he lambasts Gleick for not providing sources for his claim. Well how about we ask the people who have a really strong interest in what is happening to climate – the people who have to pay for the consequences of it. The Insurance companies.

This report from Munich Re came out this week. Munich Re is a re-insurrer – the companies that insure the insurance companies. So their own data on claims and events shows them what is really happening.

This link to there report shows it clearly. Look at the figure on page 4. It shows the increase in the Number of natural catastrophes World Wide. Not this is number of events, not dolar value. Increasing from around 400 a year in 1980 to over 800 a year around 2010.

And look at the categories. Geophysical events are pretty steady over 30 years at around 50. But the other 3 types – Storms, Floods & climatalogical events such as fires & droughts increased from around 320 to 750 over the same period.

So who is giving accurate and trustworthy information? The Climate Scientist or the Prvate Sector Lobbyist?

Forbes describes itself as one of the most important magasines for business. And business must always use the most reliable information it can. So one would expect that Forbes would want everything published by it to be as reliable as possible. Yet in recent weeks there have been a stream of climate change denialist misinformers, all trading on their supposedly conservative, sober ‘trustworthy’ demeanor. When actually they are simply peddling false information.

The global warming myth is based on predictions from Hansen’s 1988 climate model, which were presented to the US senate in the same year. For 2011, Hansen’s model predicted 1C, actual global mean temperature was 0.63C. Hansen’s model has failed to predict the global mean temperature for any year, but at least looked half reasonable until 2000, since when the global mean temperature and Hansen’s prediction has got further and further away.

I draw your attention to the warmist website:- http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

where Figure 1 shows the discrepency described above (even larger in 2011), and the comments try to explain away why the discrepency would have been right had Hansen selected a lower climate sensitivity factor. This lower factor isn’t plotted on the graph, as if it would Hansen would have been laughably out for years prior to 2000, rather than being laughably out for years post 2000.

There is no science to the global warming hypothesis, just a bunch of Druids in a cave in Nevada carving out the Mayan calendar on the wall.

See my earlier comment. The world has warmed since 1998. Its just that most of that warming has happened in the oceans. And if you want to look into the science of AGW, start with Gilbert Plass in the 50′s, Roger Revelle in the 1930′s.

So jdey claims that if you let him choose a particular temperature data set and then let him choose the start and end points of the temperature series, he can PROVE! than global warming is a myth!

But let’s set aside jdey’s cherry picking ways for a minute and see what happens when you analyze the same data over a set of fixed time intervals (i.e., 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 year intervals) with 2011 as the endpoint. The results for each interval show the same thing–significant global warming.

This demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of jdey and his science denial pals. Cherry picking is not sound scientific practice, but that fact doesn’t keep the science denial crew from relying on data cherry picking to fabricate all sorts of non-scientific gibberish.

Now, jdey may shriek that looking at temperature trends over periods as long as twenty years is just too long, in spite of the fact that climate variability makes looking at temperature trends over short time periods relatively meaningless. Nevertheless, why didn’t jdey choose 1996 as the starting point (instead of 1998)? He chose 1998 as his starting point because, as a result of climate variability, 1998 was a relatively warm year in the 1990s. If he had chosen 1996 as his starting point, his temperature analysis would show a clear warming trend in global temperatures.

What if jdey had chosen 2008 as his starting point? His analysis of the 3 year temperature trend would show significant global warming. So why doesn’t jdey mention this? Does he have an agenda or is he simply parroting things he’s read on science denial blogs?

Whatever jdey’s intentions are, it’s painfully obvious that he’s using data cherry picking to try to conceal the plain fact that the world is warming. It’s sad that so many people are fooled by the type of scientific fraud that jdey is propagating.

from Mr. Taylor’s article———-” It certainly wasn’t tornadoes, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports 2011 continued a long-term trend in declining frequency of strong tornadoes. “———-

Now read what NOAA had to say about the spring 2011 events.

{partial quote to exemplify—-read the whole page for a much better overview of spring 2011}

——-” April 2011

April 2011 is ranked as the most active tornado month on record with 753 tornadoes (For more information, please visit NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center). There were an estimated 364 fatalities.

The previous record was set in April 1974 with 267 tornadoes.

The average number of tornadoes for the month of April during the past decade is 161.

The previous record number of tornadoes during any month was 542 tornadoes set in May 2003.”——

Yeah, I agree that Taylor is a flat out liar. Even though I’m convinced that he has no knowledge of climate science, he must know that he’s lying when he posts all this science denial gibberish. Even the excuse that Taylor is completely ignorant of science doesn’t explain the numerous lies he’s been caught telling about nonscientific issues. The fact that Taylor professionally associates with people who have repeatedly been caught lying doesn’t help either.

I disagree somewhat about Taylor having no knowledge of Climate Science. You can’t effectively undermine something if you don’t understand it first.

Since most of the lies from so called Skeptics are lies of omission, you actually have to understand things fairly well in order to know what pitfalls to avoid and what not to say to present your distorted message.

Imagine, without people like us following the Taylor’s around, pointing out their misrepresentations, how many people like Joe Average would even know they were being BSed to. Thats what the Taylors rely on.

Then you have the real pro’s at this game. People like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer etc. They don’t bother with small potatoes like Forbes. They take it right to the top. Testimony to Congress. Another captive audience of Joe Averages who have no way of knowing when they are being BSed to.

And the Tea Partiers sure gave these guys a free kick. Make sure Congress is REALLY filled with Joe Averages.

This isn’t a right vs left thing.

Put simply, no country can prosper or expect to remain connected to the real world if its people insist on electing fools. Congress (or any other countries parliament) should always be filled with the very brightest people we can find.

But how often do people vote for someone because ‘he seems like a decent person. He shares my values’. Sure, but is he actually very bright, educated, skillful, knowledgable. And why did he volunteer for the job? Why did he stick his hand up in the air? Surely that is a bit of a give away? The more someone wants the job, the more we perhaps should doubt them and look at their credentials.

Government after all is essentially management, with a slight idealogical undertone. Hire the most competent managers first. Or you will always have bad government. Of whatever political flavour.

And when vested interests of every political flavour can employ various hired guns like Taylor to target our less than capable elected representatives, what chance do we have. The Taylors can run rings around the Member for Lower Where-Ever.

Until we elect people on competency rather than charisma, the Taylors will still get away with it.

Fantasy. Bill Gates for President. Warren Buffet for Secretary of the Treasury. No member of Congress can be elected without passing an IQ test, exams in Science & Maths. No economists are ever allowed in. Or Lawyers.

Do you know what country that sounds like? China. For all the faults of the Chinese political system (and they are many), they have always valued technical expertise. Hu Jin Tao, the current leader was trained as a Hydraulic Engineer for example.

The same thing can be said about Peter Gleick. I have checked out his science background. Basically he took the “jock” non accredited science courses for his undergraduate degree, not the more rigorous ABET accredited ones. He is more of a social scientist, and gets paid to spout IPCC propaganda.

“The Obama administration will announce rejection of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline as soon as today, according to two people familiar with the matter. The rejection will probably come from the State Department which has been charged with reviewing the project, and a joint statement will come from some unions and environmental groups in support of the decision, according to the person who spoke on the condition of anonymity before an announcement.”

You’re brave, The Doc seems (allegedly) to have a bit of a rep as a Rottweiler. Forgive me, just having a bit of fun. The vociferous nature of responses tends to give away the fact that they are getting a bit desperate. All they have is the models and they ain’t working. I like reading his stuff because it gives me counter examples about how science actually works and how it is misused. The post-modern approach prevails in believer world and the alternative and null completely confused, although anything but an alarmist (the alternative) view appears unthinkable.

It’s a shame on science and particularly statistical inference, or the misuse thereof. I have not seen anything against the null that climate changes pretty naturally, looks like 30 year cycles of cooling and then 30 years of warming. Seems we are at the maximum and things will cool, well we might see it if they didn’t tinker with the data at will. One thing is for sure, I know it’s anecdotal info but nevertheless reliable data, we here in the UK have had a few of the most horrendous winters (around the solar minimum) ever, back to what I experienced when I was a kid 40 years ago. If we can believe the data are anything like what is really happening then as with all time series data once you get to a peak the epochs around that point are also quite large, ditto minimum.

This is the 20/21st century shocker of an alarmist story and the sooner it is busted the quicker we can get on with patching up the credibility of our art. I hope that the alarmists are just terribly misguided and uneducated, otherwise it could be seen as criminality in my book.

Kudos for holding Gleik’s feet to the fire. He makes his baseless, anonymous accusations, and then when called on his insinuations, Gleick makes a red herring argument, and changes the subject. Unfortunately for Gleick, the ultimate Authority – Planet Earth – is falsifying Gleick’s wild-eyed scare tactics. So who should we believe? Gleick? Or Mother Earth?

Next, Gleick’s repeatedly debunked claim of “97 – 98%” of all climate scientists agree with him is preposterous nonsense. You couldn’t get 98% of the population to agree that the Pope is Catholic. Gleik’s Appeal to his false Authority is typical of the alarmist crowd’s nonsense.

Finally, Gleick asserts that: “I will ignore the completely scientific nonsense that comprises the rest of his post…” Gleick is clearly nuts. A comment is either nonsense, or it is scientific. It cannot be both. By conflating the two, Glrick shows that he doesn’t even understand what he is saying.

It;s great that Forbes allows readers to see the sharp contrast between the borderline insane alarmist crowd, and those like Mr Taylor, who shows that there is absolutely nothing unusual happening with the planet’s climate: global temperatures have been flat to declining for the past 15 years, while (harmless, beneficial) CO2 lhas increased, resulting in a measurable greening of the planet.

Absolutely no harm has resulted from the rise in this beneficial trace gas, as was constantly predicted by the purveyors of catastrophic runaway global warming. They were simply wrong. CO2 is completely harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Life could not exist without CO2. It is every bit as essential to life as water and oxygen.

I always knew Algore was a nutcase. But he has been eclipsed by the scaremongering lunatic Peter Gleick.

James; Since you’re HI’s environmental policy senior fellow, please do what you can to expedite the full allocation and release of funds for Anthony Watt’s NOAA data presentation project. Now that FakeGate has hit the fan, the iron is hot and it’s the perfect time to thin the ranks of warmists with strokes, coronaries, and apoplexy.

Every sputtering spew of outrage that his costs are being covered for providing an adequate server and hiring competent programming talent offers another opportunity to point out that BP co-founded CRU, that Greenpee spends 100s of million$ on its warmist shills, that ReallyRealClimateHonest is owned and funded by the PR firm Fenton, etc., etc.

Seem to have come to the party late on this one so I don’t expect you’ll notice me pointing out the small flaw in your rant about extreme weather. You clearly missed (or chose to ignore) this point, made by Taylor in his original post:

“Yes, there were some strong tornadoes in 2011, but there are strong tornadoes every year. The only thing climatically remarkable about the 2011 tornado season is that the relatively few strong tornadoes that did occur happened to beat the odds and touch down more often in urban areas than is usually the case. Unless Gleick is arguing that global warming somehow causes hurricanes to wickedly target disproportionately urban areas…. ”

Yet, despite him openly admitting that last year had an unusually high proportion of the extreme weather that happened causing damage, you try to refute him by quoting the DAMAGE COSTS as evidence that the number of events have increased. That’s mindbogglingly disingenuous!

Say, one year, we have 10 extreme events which all happen to occur in remote, unpopulated, areas then, the next year, we have a single event which happens to occur in New York. By your reckoning, that year with one event has “ more extreme weather” than the previous year. Despite there being 10 times as many events.

You CANNOT use damage costs as a proxy to model increased severe weather when objective measurements, such as ACE, show that events haven’t increased at all. Unless, of course, you’re a Climate Scientist, in which case it appears to be SOP to bend the observations to match the models.

Or, perhaps, you really do believe – as Taylor facetiously* suggests – that the evil of Global Warming is somehow deliberately targeting extreme events to the places they’ll happen to do most damage? If that’s what you do believe I’d be genuinely interested, in the name of science, to hear your proposed mechanism?

* Mr Taylor, my apologies if your suggestion wasn’t intended facetiously but it’s so obviously absurd that I have to assume you did!

It seems odd to me to focus on what appears to be a decline in the always small number of very large or very forceful tornadoes, E-3 to E-5, while ignoring the trends in tornadoes and tornado destruction. The number of tornadoes in the U.S. has risen consistently over the past 40 years. Mr. Taylor somehow overlooked all the other charts NOAA has on the issue.

That’s not fair, it’s not accurate.

See: NOAA National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate: Tornadoes for Annual 2011, published online December 2011, retrieved on February 26, 2012 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2011/13.

It appears that Greg Laden is placing all of the credibility for this segment of his blog on what Shawn Otto wrote regarding this issue of Gleick and Heartland. I looked into Otto’s thoughts and the comment section and found this out and I had to post a comment of my own that was received and posted, unlike what this one to Greg will be. Heartland-1 … NCSE-0 Posted on: February 29, 2012 3:24 PM, by Greg Laden http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#c6237243

When reading through this nonsense and wondering why I was wasting my time doing so I did happen on these revelations: ursus augustus:”I find your conspiracy/sting theory silly, desperate and contrived. Gleick admits to the fraud aspect of the matter and as such his judgement and professional ethics are at issue which in turn taints his assertions that he did not forge the alleged memo. Bast has no such cloud over his integrity by any objective measure.”

AMac:”In terms of the results you report here: Greg Laden blogged that they prove that Dr Gleick did not write the Fake Strategy Memo, and that it must have been written by Joseph Bast and/or Steven Mosher.”

Shawn Lawrence Otto:”As to Greg Laden’s post, I think it’s somewhat silly and one cannot draw those conclusions at all.” You are right on this one but it shows that Greg is one thing and that is consistent because about everything he comes up with is “somewhat silly and one cannot draw those conclusions at all.” http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120229.html